LAU
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissing the complaint and denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, moved to proceed in forma pauperis. A Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion, dismissing the complaint, and gra…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Report And Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Tera Brooke Lau, proceeding pro se, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (Motion, Dkt. 2). On January 23, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick entered a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's Motion be denied without prejudice, the complaint (Dkt. 1) be dismissed, and Plaintiff be given leave to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. 12 at 5.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has now passed.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. With respect to non-dispositive matters, the district judge "must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see Jordan v. Comm'r, Miss. Dep't of Corr., 947 F. 3d 1322, 1327 (11th Cir. 2020). For dispositive matters, the district judge must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the report and recommendation to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F. 3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate's report to which objections are filed."). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district judge reviews any legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).
Upon conducting a careful and complete review of the Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court adopts the report and recommendation in full.
Accordingly:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 12) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED.
3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) is DENIED without prejudice.
4. On or before April 30, 2025, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint and a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, if she can do so in good faith. Failure to file an amended complaint and a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis by the deadline may result in dismissal without further notice.
5. When filing a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff must use the form "Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form)," located on the court's website, www.flmd.uscourts.gov, under the "Forms" tab.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on April 10, 2025.
JULIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Party
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Jordan v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., 947 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2020)
- In re Mad Toyz III, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2026)
- United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2009)